Skip to Content

The Internet Doesn’t Have to Be Bad for Democracy

A new form of online survey uses crowdsourcing and data visualization to reveal the hidden nuances in partisan debates.

Accusations that the Internet and social media sow political division have flown thick and fast since recent contentious elections in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has even pledged to start working on technology that will turn the energy of online interactions into a more positive force (see “We Need More Alternatives to Facebook”).

Tiny, largely self-funded U.S. startup has been working on a similar project longer than Zuckerberg and already has some promising results. The company’s interactive, crowdsourced survey tool can be used to generate maps of public opinion that help citizens, governments, and legislators discover the nuances of agreement and disagreement on contentious issues that exist. In 2016, that information helped the government of Taiwan break a six-year deadlock over how to regulate online alcohol sales, caused by entrenched, opposing views among citizens on what rules should apply.

“It allowed different sides to gradually see that they share the same underlying concern despite superficial disagreements,” says Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s digital minister. The island’s government now routinely sends out surveys using Facebook ads, and to special-interest groups. It has also used the system to help thrash out what rules should apply to Airbnb rentals and mobile ride-hailing services such as Uber.’s open-source software is designed to serve up interactive online surveys around a particular issue. People are shown a series of short statements about aspects of a broader issue—for example, “Uber drivers should need the same licenses cab drivers do”—and asked to click to signal that they agree or disagree. People can contribute new statements of their own for others to respond to. The tangle of crisscrossing responses is used to automatically generate charts that map out different clusters of opinion, making it easy to see the points on which people tend to overlap or disagree.

Colin Megill, cofounder and CEO of, claims this approach gives governments and parties a better chance of understanding what people really care about than does soliciting avalanches of social media posts or e-mail comments. “This is a problem for lawmakers across the world right now,” he says. “We can help them understand what the electorate is feeling.”

Alternativet, a progressive Danish political party with nine members of parliament, is piloting as a way to give its members a more direct role in formulating policy. Jon Skjerning-Rasmussen, a senior process coordinator with the party, says the way visualizations are shared with people as they participate in a survey—letting them see how their opinions compare with those of others—helps people engage with the tool.

“Normal polling asks the user to contribute, but rarely gives something back,” he says. One upshot of Alternativet’s trial of the tool has been a rethink of the party’s approach to the idea of a universal basic income. revealed that party insiders formed an enthusiastic cluster around the idea that was isolated from the more cautious feelings of the wider membership.

Megill is hopeful will soon get a tryout in the United States, citing ongoing talks at federal and state government levels.

Graham Smith, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster, in London, praises the way’s design gets people to engage with ideas in a more substantive way than is possible on the commercial services that dominate online life.

“A lot of organizations are using Twitter and Facebook to try and engage publics, but these are not tools or platforms designed with democratic ideals in mind,” he says. Smith is working on a project that will test as a way to improve discussions on online news articles.

Still, more tests and case studies are needed to prove how and where the tools can be helpful (or not), says Smith. And like any system put on the Internet, the platform will have to stand up to attempts to subvert or break it as it scales up, whether from political pressure groups or mischief-makers. Megill says visualizations make astroturfing very obvious by revealing when many people put forth identical views—but the openness of that data could also help attempts to more covertly influence the picture it paints. Political hacks and Internet trolls are nothing if not innovative.

Deep Dive


What’s next for AI regulation in 2024? 

The coming year is going to see the first sweeping AI laws enter into force, with global efforts to hold tech companies accountable. 

Meet the economist who wants the field to account for nature

Gretchen Daily is working to make the environment more of an element in economic decision-making.

Three technology trends shaping 2024’s elections

The biggest story of this year will be elections in the US and all around the globe

Four lessons from 2023 that tell us where AI regulation is going

What we should expect in the coming 12 months in AI policy

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.